US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[Harry Bosch]

This is indeed a weird thing to hang your hat on. The evidence is pretty clear that it's completely wrong.
She may not be as dovelike as others, but she is clearly not as bloodthirsty as Cheney. To make such an exaggeration part of your argument is sort of a weird own-goal.

He statements around her "yes" vote for Iraq is a strong rebuttal just on the surface, and then her actions as Sec State confirm it.

Cheney created an excuse for a massive war out of whole cloth, peddled it, sold it, executed it, profited from it and still defends it.
Hillary does none of those things.

It can't be because of domestic policy,

Are you saying you agree with all of her domestic policy?

If you disagree with her it is because she's a woman.

When your disagreements seem to be based on straw men, then... well, one has to wonder, doesn't one?

As for whether or not it is a Moore-Coulter, isn't it a little insulting to Coulter to compare her to Hillary?

I don't get the really deeply anger-filled hatred for her. Her policies just don't account for that. It's quite puzzling. She's just _not_ that radical to earn that much bile.

Yea, listening to the current rhetoric, you'd think that Hillary was the next Genghis Khan! Prior to 2008, Hillary's greatest fear was that she would be perceived as being too weak because she is a woman. From what I've read, this is why she comes across as tougher on foreign policy. However, I see no reason to see why she wouldn't continue to follow Obama's move to cooperate more with our allies and the international community. I think that once in office, that she will be less likely to want to get entangled in other countries civil wars. She'll be more collaborative.

Cheney, Bush, and Coulter developed a strategy of invade with a coalition of the willing (which means that the US bears 95% of the responsibility). The US invades and then holds the land.

 

[Tristan Scott]

There is a pretty good analysis of Clinton's foreign policy views in Foreign Affairs Magazine. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwiTw-WTpOzMAhUBR2MKHV8wB7MQFgg_MAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foreignaffairs.com%2Farticles%2F2016-05-17%2Fhillary-clinton-doctrine&usg=AFQjCNG4gbCD0eFaJYnryc5FA4SFvfnoPA&sig2=xjr-GSjsKXxgJAbXPcX1fQ

If you don't want to read the article, it's not very long, here is the summary:

Global instability is set to continue, and likely increase, after Obama leaves office. The next president will have a slim margin of error for solving these problems. But had the Clinton Doctrine been in place over the last four years, odds are that the United States could have kept Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council happy, deterred Putin from intervening in Syria, removed the Assad regime from power, and gotten the UN to shepherd a governance transition after his removal. Libya would have been a more stable (albeit struggling) country as well. In Asia, Washington would have seen Beijing’s hard-liners have less influence in Chinese affairs. And in Europe, Clinton could have made U.S. allies provide a greater share of their own security burden. Plus, a Clinton administration would have also been able to negotiate a successful nuclear deal with Iran. The number of security crises is more than likely to increase over the coming years, and the Clinton Doctrine is better equipped than that of Obama or Trump to deal with them.

 

[J842P]

Quite frankly, to the claim the world would be a better place if Assad had been toppled is insane. They only reason religious and ethnic minorities and liberal people can live in Syria is because of Assad. Toppling Assad would be a disaster. Look to Iraq if you want to know the results. But of course, toppling Assad would be to our benefit in the region at the expense of the Russians, which is all these people care about.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is a pretty good analysis of Clinton's foreign policy views in Foreign Affairs Magazine. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwiTw-WTpOzMAhUBR2MKHV8wB7MQFgg_MAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foreignaffairs.com%2Farticles%2F2016-05-17%2Fhillary-clinton-doctrine&usg=AFQjCNG4gbCD0eFaJYnryc5FA4SFvfnoPA&sig2=xjr-GSjsKXxgJAbXPcX1fQ

If you don't want to read the article, it's not very long, here is the summary:

Global instability is set to continue, and likely increase, after Obama leaves office. The next president will have a slim margin of error for solving these problems. But had the Clinton Doctrine been in place over the last four years, odds are that the United States could have kept Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council happy, deterred Putin from intervening in Syria, removed the Assad regime from power, and gotten the UN to shepherd a governance transition after his removal. Libya would have been a more stable (albeit struggling) country as well. In Asia, Washington would have seen Beijing’s hard-liners have less influence in Chinese affairs. And in Europe, Clinton could have made U.S. allies provide a greater share of their own security burden. Plus, a Clinton administration would have also been able to negotiate a successful nuclear deal with Iran. The number of security crises is more than likely to increase over the coming years, and the Clinton Doctrine is better equipped than that of Obama or Trump to deal with them.

Russia wants Syria for the Ports, no way Assad would have stepped down unless Russia picked successor.

 

[angelo]

Russia want's Syria for the ports as well as influence in the Middle East.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile, Ohio and Florida polls are out, Clinton leading in both. Leads are small, but consistent. I suppose right now, the good news is Trump isn't getting creamed yet. The bad news... apparently Republicans will vote for nearly anyone other than Clinton.

 

[Tristan Scott]

The new national polls are very telling. 32% of Sanders supporters say they won't support Clinton and 17% say they will support Trump. In the Sanders vs. Trump polling virtually all of Clinton supporters say they would support Sanders and virtually 0 zero would support Trump.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The new national polls are very telling. 32% of Sanders supporters say they won't support Clinton and 17% say they will support Trump. In the Sanders vs. Trump polling virtually all of Clinton supporters say they would support Sanders and virtually 0 zero would support Trump.

And Clinton's supporters said similar things in '08 (minus the Trump), but they didn't and they voted for Obama.

 

[Tristan Scott]

The new national polls are very telling. 32% of Sanders supporters say they won't support Clinton and 17% say they will support Trump. In the Sanders vs. Trump polling virtually all of Clinton supporters say they would support Sanders and virtually 0 zero would support Trump.

And Clinton's supporters said similar things in '08 (minus the Trump), but they didn't and they voted for Obama.

The difference, of course, was that in '08 the Clinton supporters who responded that way were Democrats, most of the aforementioned 32% of Sanders supporters are not.

 

[angelo]

When shove turns to pull, Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton.

 

[jonatha]

When shove turns to pull,

Is this an Oz-ism, or did you just make it up?

(USians would say "when push comes to shove")

 

[lpetrich]

From CNN's 2016 Election Center, Hillary Clinton now has 2297 delegates, and she will need 2383 delegates needed to win. That's 86 delegates more.

The next Democratic primaries have these numbers of delegates:
June 4: US Virgin Islands -- 7
June 5: Puerto Rico -- 60
June 7: CA, MT, NJ, NM, ND, SD -- 694
June 14: DC: 20

A total of 781 delegates.

So Bernie Sanders will need 89% of the upcoming vote to win. But we will not know until June 7, because the US VI's and PR don't have enough delegates to push her over the top.

 

[ksen]

Now do it without including superdelegates.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Now do it without including superdelegates.

Why? Is that how party nominations work?

 

[arkirk]

Now do it without including superdelegates.

Why? Is that how party nominations work?

With Hillary in there 2016 has become a WHORE'S RACE. Superdelegates can be bought with all that immoral money she has taken from Wall Street, the frackers, the war machine, big pharma, the insurance companies. You bean counters just don't get it. This is not supposed to be some sort of horse race anyway. It is supposed to be a democratic election of the best person to lead the country for the next four years. There is a moral component to this office you just keep ignoring. The voters should be looking at HOW THE CANDIDATE WOULD PERFORM IN OFFICE, not how many bought delegates she has. Clinton has a long history to look at regarding her past government involvement and it is not a pretty picture. She is a war monger. Her and her husband meddle in foreign government politics as well....for example Haiti, where she opposed a 60 cent minimum wage to people working in factories she and her husband had an interest.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It is supposed to be a democratic election of the best person to lead the country for the next four years.

That's not what this is right now. This is a party picking its candidate. If you don't like Hilary, you can always vote for Bernie Sanders, even if he's not the Democratic Party's nominee. The elections are in November, and you can vote for anyone you want, regardless of whom a certain party picked as their nominee.

There's no constitutional guarantee that a party's nomination process need be democratically done. Hence things like superdelegates. Anyone upset with the nomination process still has the full right to vote for whomever they want when the ballot comes. That's what democracy is. The voters can still look at how the candidate would perform in office and if they think Sanders will do a better job they can vote for him.

 

[Tristan Scott]

DNFTEC

 

[ksen]

Now do it without including superdelegates.

Why? Is that how party nominations work?

It would show that without help from the superdelegates Hillary also is not likely to reach the 2383 delegates needed for the nomination with pledged delegates alone.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Polling shows Virginia as a tie with over 20% undecided and California has Trump down by 14 pts.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes, because not including superdelegates in her count, but still including them in the number of delegates one needs will lead to a distorted view of the matter.

Now try reducing the total number of delegates accordingly and see what happens.

And try adding up the total number of voters who have voted for either candidate and see what you see.

I voted for Sanders myself, but I don't support this nonsense now.